Posted on Dec 30, 2015
During times of harsh fiscal cutbacks, why are single sailors and airmen still authorized to move off base and receive BAH w/o?
62K
112
68
4
4
0
I find it concerning that all single E4's in the Air Force and Navy are authorized (practically encouraged) to move out of barracks upon promotion.
1. The majority of these individuals (not all) lack the maturity and responsibility required to successfully transition to an independent and healthy lifestyle.
2. Our Military simply cannot afford it. We are cutting good people and reducing our hard earned benefits.
The Marine Corps does it much differently in that only single E6 and above are authorized BAH W/O unless barracks occupancy surpasses 95% for that installation.
I think there is a happy middle ground here where only those that are top performers earn this as a reward vice it being handed out to all.
What are your thoughts?
1. The majority of these individuals (not all) lack the maturity and responsibility required to successfully transition to an independent and healthy lifestyle.
2. Our Military simply cannot afford it. We are cutting good people and reducing our hard earned benefits.
The Marine Corps does it much differently in that only single E6 and above are authorized BAH W/O unless barracks occupancy surpasses 95% for that installation.
I think there is a happy middle ground here where only those that are top performers earn this as a reward vice it being handed out to all.
What are your thoughts?
BAH
Housing
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 19
18
18
0
I find it disturbing that the Department of Defense still promotes institutionalized discrimination against unmarried Servicemembers (or, more accurately, those without dependents). Since when has being married (or having dependents) been a justifiable legal qualification for better treatment? How has DoD gotten away with discrimination against single Servicemembers (or those without dependents) for so long? In your logic, being married automatically equates to more maturity and responsibility? So, the minute before someone gets married, they aren't mature and responsible, but the minute they sign a document they are more mature and responsible? Really?
(18)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Maj (Join to see) In the Army, the reality is that single Soldiers are generally tasked with the undesirable, late night or weekend or holiday tasks while married Soldiers, well, aren't. This isn't limited to enlisted and NCO ranks, it happens for officers, too. I've experienced this sort of issue back when I was in infantry battalions and single (I didn't get married until I was a senior captain). You note this is a leadership issue. It is, but in the Army, it's a cultural issue. Most people at higher ranks are married, and 1) suffered this sort of discrimination when they were younger and single, so think it is a normal and acceptable part of Army culture and 2) are now married, and as such no longer suffer from this, so may have conveniently forgotten how this works.
(3)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
PO1 Nick Lingenfelter What ever floats your boat (no pun intended) but I think you missed my point.
I know people who would rather live on base than off base and vice versa. Some have to move on base and some have to move off (no big shocker there). Right now, I "have" to live on base because I am married and someone that is not married (and the same rank as me) has to live off base. Am I offended? No. Are they offended? No. I'm not going to go all "separate but equal" because it holds no weight. I can understand the reason bases have certain rules and it isn't based off of some discriminatory belief system. It seems to be based on purely fiscal reasons. Housing is housing in my belief and a "down vote" isn't going to change my mind because I know (at least in the AF) housing isn't subpar and it just keeps getting better. Is it the "best it can be"? No. Is it better than the Army, Marines, etc? Apparently, yes.
If someone believes my statement means either on base or off base housing is better than the other (when I just said, "on base/off base housing is housing") then that prejudicial thought belongs to that person and not me.
I know people who would rather live on base than off base and vice versa. Some have to move on base and some have to move off (no big shocker there). Right now, I "have" to live on base because I am married and someone that is not married (and the same rank as me) has to live off base. Am I offended? No. Are they offended? No. I'm not going to go all "separate but equal" because it holds no weight. I can understand the reason bases have certain rules and it isn't based off of some discriminatory belief system. It seems to be based on purely fiscal reasons. Housing is housing in my belief and a "down vote" isn't going to change my mind because I know (at least in the AF) housing isn't subpar and it just keeps getting better. Is it the "best it can be"? No. Is it better than the Army, Marines, etc? Apparently, yes.
If someone believes my statement means either on base or off base housing is better than the other (when I just said, "on base/off base housing is housing") then that prejudicial thought belongs to that person and not me.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
PO1 Nick Lingenfelter I'm still awaiting Maj (Join to see)'s explanation of how a decision based solely on marital status (ie, all these housing policies are based solely on marital status) does not equal discrimination. She's explained that all Servicemembers are provided housing, and asserted that the type of housing provided does not matter and thus DoD housing policies aren't discriminatory.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm
The Equal Pay Act requires equal compensation for equal work. It includes benefits as part of compensation. In DoD, married members are compensated at higher rates than non-married members, due to programs like housing that incentivizes marriage. I don't understand how this isn't discriminatory.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm
The Equal Pay Act requires equal compensation for equal work. It includes benefits as part of compensation. In DoD, married members are compensated at higher rates than non-married members, due to programs like housing that incentivizes marriage. I don't understand how this isn't discriminatory.
Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination
Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
1) I believe the USAF does lodging different. They just don't build as much. If there aren't barracks available, they shift personnel to the outside community.
2) "If these individuals lack maturity and responsibility required for an independent and healthy lifestyle" they shouldn't be serving. They're not children. They're grown adults, who swore to serve our nation, and potentially give their lives for it. The only way they are going to learn financial freedom is if we teach them financial freedom.
3) One of the flaws our Marine Corps has is treating Marines up through the rank of Sergeant as though they need to be "babysat" with constant supervision in a barracks. This drives younger Marines to ill-prepared marriage, to escape barracks life. A financial situation far worse than just living in an apartment alone. Although there are HUGE advantages of having our troops readily available for recall, which is the primary reason to have a barracks, which I do not discount, the cost benefit is a secondary concern beyond that.
4) Budgets for housing should expand and grow as our force expands and grows. That should be a Congress level issue. Therefore BAH is actually the BEST way to deal with this as opposed to having barracks & housing on bases. Those are "fixed" overhead resources which take budget and cannot be reclaimed during drawdown, and cannot be expanded during expansion.
I understand where you are going with this, however, I believe you are thinking of these individuals not as Adults, and these Resources not in Economic terms, but in a more traditional pen & paper budgetary way.
2) "If these individuals lack maturity and responsibility required for an independent and healthy lifestyle" they shouldn't be serving. They're not children. They're grown adults, who swore to serve our nation, and potentially give their lives for it. The only way they are going to learn financial freedom is if we teach them financial freedom.
3) One of the flaws our Marine Corps has is treating Marines up through the rank of Sergeant as though they need to be "babysat" with constant supervision in a barracks. This drives younger Marines to ill-prepared marriage, to escape barracks life. A financial situation far worse than just living in an apartment alone. Although there are HUGE advantages of having our troops readily available for recall, which is the primary reason to have a barracks, which I do not discount, the cost benefit is a secondary concern beyond that.
4) Budgets for housing should expand and grow as our force expands and grows. That should be a Congress level issue. Therefore BAH is actually the BEST way to deal with this as opposed to having barracks & housing on bases. Those are "fixed" overhead resources which take budget and cannot be reclaimed during drawdown, and cannot be expanded during expansion.
I understand where you are going with this, however, I believe you are thinking of these individuals not as Adults, and these Resources not in Economic terms, but in a more traditional pen & paper budgetary way.
(9)
(0)
8
8
0
CWO3 (Join to see)
I've always been under the understanding that it was for E-4 & above. Plus, I've always felt that single members who do live in the barracks aren't given a chance to show "maturity and responsibility" when they are constantly being treated like children (room inspections) and inmates ("fire drills" at 0200, a personal experience).
I've always been under the understanding that it was for E-4 & above. Plus, I've always felt that single members who do live in the barracks aren't given a chance to show "maturity and responsibility" when they are constantly being treated like children (room inspections) and inmates ("fire drills" at 0200, a personal experience).
(8)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
CWO3 (Join to see) and PO3 David Fries
I could just never understood being treated like a child when it came to where I slept but at the same time being entrusted with a Top Secret security clearance and responsible for maintaining telecommunications and message traffic for two AOR's (Western Pacific and Indian Oceans).
I could just never understood being treated like a child when it came to where I slept but at the same time being entrusted with a Top Secret security clearance and responsible for maintaining telecommunications and message traffic for two AOR's (Western Pacific and Indian Oceans).
(0)
(0)
PO3 David Fries
PO1 John Miller I have always been amazed at some of those dichotomies in the military in general. The things we were entrusted to do every day while being treated like children in other situations.
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
PO3 David Fries
It also depended on gender. I'm not being sexist either, just speaking the blunt truth. When I was a non-designated SN at Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, my female shipmates who were E3 and below were pretty much automatically approved to move out of the barracks (even though their barracks were 1000% nicer/newer than the male barracks).
It also depended on gender. I'm not being sexist either, just speaking the blunt truth. When I was a non-designated SN at Naval Submarine Base Point Loma, my female shipmates who were E3 and below were pretty much automatically approved to move out of the barracks (even though their barracks were 1000% nicer/newer than the male barracks).
(0)
(0)
PO3 David Fries
PO1 John Miller I can't speak to the sexism part, seeing as I honestly never paid much attention to who got permission to live off base other than myself. I do know that it tended to be driven by base/ command. NMCSD allowed me as an E-3, but I was not allowed to live off base at MCBH 3/3 until I was an E-4.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google